Gary Johnson breaks the record for most votes for a LP candidate?

[adisongrace]

It sucks that libertarians such as yourself aren't willing to compromise to any extent for the sake of making gains for liberty in general. It's not like Gary Johnson is that hardcore of an abortion advocate like the left is, he only favors it being legal in the earlier stages of pregnancy I believe. Next time around if a libertarian has say 10 percent of the vote and is poised to make a huge impact would you still not be willing to support them if they favored the government allowing some abortions in limited circumstances, like only in the earliest stages? Because meanwhile we have government debt in the tens of trillions, hundreds of military bases, the government consumes probably half of the wealth of the country if not more. Why let these wedge issues divide so much? Republicans for instance will still vote republicans who favor some abortions like Romney, even though they themselves are fully pro-life. Democrats who favor fully socialized healthcare and total bans on gun ownership like Lawrence O'Donnell still support Obama, who's only partially for these things. But with libertarians it's like well I agree 99 percent of what this person says but that 1 percent I disagree with, man I just can't compromise on that. And so we never get anywhere politically because we lack sophistication. I'm not saying completely compromise your principles, that would be supporting someone like Romney or Obama. I'm saying, if someone's on the ballot like Gary Johnson. And even though you may disagree with a policy or two, even if those issues are important to you, if electing this person would still mean very substantial gains for liberty like getting rid of most of the federal government, why not do it?

I agree. We have to make progress towards restoring Liberty. +REP

 

[Paul4Prez]

This was a very poor showing for GJ. I was hoping for something in the neighborhood of 2.5-3 milliion voted (roughly 2-3% of total votes). I knew the 5% mark was a LOOOOOOONG-shot.

Oh well!

Keeping my head down and my powder dry!

This was a very strong showing for Gary Johnson.
The last 7 LP candidates, including Ron Paul in 1988, averaged about half a million votes.
Johnson doubled that.

 

[kahless]

It sucks that libertarians such as yourself aren't willing to compromise to any extent for the sake of making gains for liberty in general. It's not like Gary Johnson is that hardcore of an abortion advocate like the left is, he only favors it being legal in the earlier stages of pregnancy I believe. Next time around if a libertarian has say 10 percent of the vote and is poised to make a huge impact would you still not be willing to support them if they favored the government allowing some abortions in limited circumstances, like only in the earliest stages? Because meanwhile we have government debt in the tens of trillions, hundreds of military bases, the government consumes probably half of the wealth of the country if not more. Why let these wedge issues divide so much? Republicans for instance will still vote republicans who favor some abortions like Romney, even though they themselves are fully pro-life. Democrats who favor fully socialized healthcare and total bans on gun ownership like Lawrence O'Donnell still support Obama, who's only partially for these things. But with libertarians it's like well I agree 99 percent of what this person says but that 1 percent I disagree with, man I just can't compromise on that. And so we never get anywhere politically because we lack sophistication. I'm not saying completely compromise your principles, that would be supporting someone like Romney or Obama. I'm saying, if someone's on the ballot like Gary Johnson. And even though you may disagree with a policy or two, even if those issues are important to you, if electing this person would still mean very substantial gains for liberty like getting rid of most of the federal government, why not do it?

A true Libertarian supports liberty for ALL. To protect the life of the mother I can understand.

 

[adisongrace]

A true Libertarian supports liberty for ALL. To protect the life of the mother I can understand.

I really don't think being a Pro-Life candidate is a prerequisite...

 

[kahless]

I really don't think being a Pro-Life candidate is a prerequisite...

I disagree that there are exceptions to individual rights.

Gary's answers were flimsey. On one hand he is saying viability of the fetus and then he kept harping on it is a woman's decision.

 

[jbauer]

of all of those votes how many can we assume were votes for the Ron Paul. surogate? Kinda hard to talk about how well you did when I would guess the vast majority were Ron Paulers not Gary Johnsoners. I could be wrong though

 

[jbauer]

It sucks that libertarians such as yourself aren't willing to compromise to any extent for the sake of making gains for liberty in general. It's not like Gary Johnson is that hardcore of an abortion advocate like the left is, he only favors it being legal in the earlier stages of pregnancy I believe. Next time around if a libertarian has say 10 percent of the vote and is poised to make a huge impact would you still not be willing to support them if they favored the government allowing some abortions in limited circumstances, like only in the earliest stages? Because meanwhile we have government debt in the tens of trillions, hundreds of military bases, the government consumes probably half of the wealth of the country if not more. Why let these wedge issues divide so much? Republicans for instance will still vote republicans who favor some abortions like Romney, even though they themselves are fully pro-life. Democrats who favor fully socialized healthcare and total bans on gun ownership like Lawrence O'Donnell still support Obama, who's only partially for these things. But with libertarians it's like well I agree 99 percent of what this person says but that 1 percent I disagree with, man I just can't compromise on that. And so we never get anywhere politically because we lack sophistication. I'm not saying completely compromise your principles, that would be supporting someone like Romney or Obama. I'm saying, if someone's on the ballot like Gary Johnson. And even though you may disagree with a policy or two, even if those issues are important to you, if electing this person would still mean very substantial gains for liberty like getting rid of most of the federal government, why not do it?

For some Abortion is the only issue. I happen to beleive in liberty for all which includes the unborn but I still contened that if America is gone economically abortion isn't really even going to be a talking point when people are concerned where their own next meal is coming from.

 

[adisongrace]

I disagree that there are exceptions to individual rights.

Gary's answers were flimsey. On one hand he is saying viability of the fetus and then he kept harping on it is a woman's decision.

I believe it's the woman's choice. If we are purely talking about the liberty aspect, not the moral one...women have the right to do as the please with their bodies.

 

[kahless]

I believe it's the woman's choice. If we are purely talking about the liberty aspect, not the moral one...women have the right to do as the please with their bodies.

Yes, they do except when it infringes on the individual rights of another. What about the individual rights of the baby?

There is a comment on that video that says it best. "When you engage in the biological creation of life you consent to be a caretaker."

 

[freedomsoundmoney]

In Gary's defense, he said any times during the campaign the only way he would have any sort of chance would be if he was in the national debates. It's a shame he wasn't. The commission on presidential debates is a sham. Also, most of news coverage never mentioned he was even running, he wasn't included in a choice in most polls conducted throughout the campaign, and i'd say even to this day the vast majority of Americans have no idea who Gary Johnson is.

 

[adisongrace]

Yes, they do except when it infringes on the individual rights of another. What about the individual rights of the baby?

There is a comment on that video that says it best. "When you engage in the biological creation of life you consent to be a caretaker."

Like I stated based on the women's right to do what she sees fit with her body. She can end the pregnancy.
Purely only a defense of her rights, not putting any moral standpoint on it....

By law the fetus isn't a baby. Now if you are making a moral argument that is an entirely different discussion all together.

 

[amy31416]

Abortion again???

The laws on abortion will not change significantly in any of our lifetimes. Get over it and save it for debate class. Yeah, it's immoral. Yeah, there are exceptions and issues. But there is no electable candidate who can or would do a damn thing about it--not even Ron Paul.

 

[VRod]

Hi, everyone. I've been lurking for the past couple of days, and this is my first post.

I voted for Gary Johnson. Yes, he was a Ron Paul surrogate to me.

The night before the election, I was set on writing in Ron Paul. He got me in touch with my libertarian leanings, and his integrity is refreshing. I'm also a fan of Andrew Napolitano, so it seemed liked an easy decision.

The next morning, I thought about it again and remembered how unimpressed I was with how Ron Paul seemed to fizzle in both 2008 and 2012 once he was out of the race. He should have at least been more vocal about endorsing a particular candidate. His supporters would have appreciated that rudder. Contrast that with how strongly the Clintons endorsed Obama in 2008. At the last minute, I decided not to write him in.

I had no delusions about Gary Johnson being a blip on the radar come election day, but he was a libertarian and reflected my views more than any other candidate by a wide margin. Voting for him was no less symbolic than writing in Ron Paul. What tipped the tables toward Gary Johnson was my reluctance to have a write-in for Ron Paul interpreted as a point for the GOP in its current form.

Now I regret not writing in Ron Paul, because he was ultimately my first choice (and my state counts write-ins). This was a tough election though. Two establishment candidates whom I despised equally, my dream candidate who struck me as having fizzled, and a libertarian candidate who seemed good except for most voters having no idea who he was.

 

[madfoot]

Yes, they do except when it infringes on the individual rights of another. What about the individual rights of the baby?

There is a comment on that video that says it best. "When you engage in the biological creation of life you consent to be a caretaker."

Castle doctrine.